Trump suggests jail, loss of citizenship for burning U.S. flag

It would be dishonest to suggest that the "SJW" concept, and the vile shouting down of people who disagree as being "racist", doesn't exist. No, its
not legislation. It has nothing to do with actual justice because its social justice (which is just about the stupidest damn phrase I've ever
heard).

Do we need a law outlawing phrases when there is an army of people in horned rim glasses to shout down and harass people instead?

Do we need a law outlawing expression when we have rednecks to shout down and harass people instead?

Burning a flag sucks. Nobody deserves to spend a year in a cage for burning a flag. Hillary's idea was booted too... and hers wasn't just burning a
flag, it specifically had to do with inciting violence or if the flag belonged to someone else-- but it was still booted.

Trump... Seriously, you guys, why would you support an authoritarian style nationalism? Have you not watched any movies or read any books that have
warned about such things? Trump comes out on Twitter and tosses a draconian idea out there... and how are you not bothered by this?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Burning a flag sucks. Nobody deserves to spend a year in a cage for burning a flag. Hillary's idea was booted too... and hers wasn't just burning a
flag, it specifically had to do with inciting violence or if the flag belonged to someone else-- but it was still booted.

Trump... Seriously, you guys, why would you support an authoritarian style nationalism? Have you not watched any movies or read any books that have
warned about such things? Trump comes out on Twitter and tosses a draconian idea out there... and how are you not bothered by this?

Honest answers

Because despite your rhetoric on repeat it's not authoritarian. There's a legal precedent known as the fighting words doctrine. It's always held that
speech for the purpose of inciting anger in another party is not constitutionally lawful. Throughout the years the line of cases defining fighting
words has ebbed and flowed like every other constitutional issue. Thus not settled and most certainly not draconian.

And because majority on my side are confident we will not be marginalized by authoritian rule. Even when the pendulum drifts left we have the means
and wherewithal to combat any serious transgressions. So much so I'm not even sure your side has the power to perpetuate such transgressions in the
first place.

Last because we sincerely don't like your side and wish harm and strife to it.

Liberals have never assaulted free speech as much as conservatives love to pretend they have. There hasn't been a SINGLE law even WRITTEN, let alone
voted on and passed by the government during Obama's tenure that restricted free speech. You should know that, but instead dupe to petty partisan
shtick.

Writing laws isn't the only way to assault free speech. Neither is the government the sole enemy of free speech. Also, the first amendment is not free
speech, but a law protecting it from government. But you should know that, especially given that free speech is a liberal principle.

I doubt you know what free speech is, its history, why we need it, yet claim to support liberal principles. Is that true?

The whole reason Trump got elected was due to a mandate against social justice whining. He was a man who could say whatever he wanted with impunity.
And coming right off the most recent Rebel Flag dust up, the nation was ripe for the picking.

So while technically you are correct...in reality it hasn't quite been like that. In fact, we have the most divisive president in our history based
on the fact that people were sick of social justice telling them what they could and could not say. Perhaps when the pendulum swings the other way
(and it will) you can point out how the behavior of the right caused the left to elect a lunatic. For now....it aint that way.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but
it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?

Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to
contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but
it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?

Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to
contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.

Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such
as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove
criminal intent to threaten. They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology. In another cross-burning case,
the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute
hate speech.

"The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis," Weinstein said.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but
it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?

You guys literally wont see anything until its too late.
So lets look to our neighbor in the north and how its now criminal to misgender someone c16 bill call me xir!
follow the links also in what I put in the post you replied to of one (and many) places globally now putting cyber bullying bills into effect
or screw it, just check the PDF here cyber bullying state to state
Cyber bullying is a thing that started (arguably in good faith) and continues to evolve and encompass more and more aspects of society

How this has already effected things: Anita Sarkeesian was able to not make her femfreq donations public due to a little clause that allows you to
not have to show if you are under a "orchistristrated campaign of harassment"..hense why she and many other regressives are pushing and expanding on
cyber bullying to basically include criticism.

Her trip to the UN has unleashed globally more and more nations to expand on their censors..erm.."harassment" laws to include mass cyber bullying.

You are standing in a warzone and wont believe it will effect you until a bullet hits you specifically in the head.
Bit too late by then, dont you think? proactive verses reactive. you dont have to step up to the fight, but get out of our way if you wont.

His tweet is over-the-top. Flag burning is protected free speech. Loss of citizenship is something that wasn't even allowed to be used for terrorists
under the Bush administration. Hopefully, Trump does not plan on taking away the citizenship of people he doesn't like. And Republicans ask why he
seems fascist...

Perhaps when the pendulum swings the other way (and it will) you can point out how the behavior of the right caused the left to elect a lunatic. For
now....it aint that way.

Long bridges are built to sway left and right in the wind...If built improperly or if an unusual wind holds steady for long enough that bridge tears
itself apart and collapses. I am hoping the wind dies down, cuz I do trust the founders built a good bridge.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but
it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?

Your reply is indicitive of a Law and order svu grad not an attorney or legal scholar. Hate speech is a broad term used even by the SC to
contextualize limits on the first amendment free speech. Such limits include libel slander defamation and fighting words.

Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such
as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove
criminal intent to threaten. They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology. In another cross-burning case,
the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute
hate speech.

"The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis," Weinstein said.

I don't see anything apart from hyperbolic shouting from both sides...which is what our constitution very intentionally protects.

"Hate Speech"...is a description, not legal term in the USA. So debating who wants to call what "Hate Speech" is interesting to those who care...but
it is just a an adjective, not law.

Not seeing your point?

You guys literally wont see anything until its too late.
So lets look to our neighbor in the north and how its now criminal to misgender someone

Nothing personal, but no..I won't look to Europe or Canada or any other country and fear for our constitution and react..

We have survived all measure of challenge to our way of life and we remain the "greatest experiment the world has ever know"....nothing scares me
about laws from Europe or abroad undermining our foundation...I admit I fear internal disease within government...specifically the one-sided power and
ideological agenda occupying DC right now.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.